Electing a President is like buying a car. We have a list of all the things we hated about our last car, and we look for a model that has none of those annoying features. Trouble is, after a few months of driving, we find the new car has a whole lot of annoying features of its own.
In 2000 all most Americans wanted was a President who would remain faithful to his wife. The number one reason people gave for electing George W Bush in 2000 was "moral values". It was still the number one reason in 2004, though the percentage was not as high.
So, in 2008 what do people hate about George Bush? The answer is, just about everything. Republicans and Democrats are both looking for a candidate who is as different from Bush as they can be. So we have maverick Republican and outsider, John McCain on one side. And a major Democratic contest for the title of "Least Bush" on the other.
But the voters' assessments have little to do with policy. Even if people were willing and able to analyze the policies of each candidate, there is very little to distinguish one candidate's policies from another. Instinctively people know the larger question is, who is best able to implement policy, and effect results? As with cars unfortunately, this assessment is mostly based on "look and feel", rather than substance. The whole contest comes down to one of presentation and marketing.
For a long time Hilary Clinton was the Democratic front runner. Being a woman made her very different from George Bush. More importantly, people had seen her perform under all sorts of pressure. She was a great debater and could take on any of the men, and she had survived 17 years of tough public exposure. But when husband Bill took on an attack dog role, it brought her leadership into question, apart from waking the "moral values" ghost.
Obama did not perform as well in those early debates, but he did have a lot of non-Bush credentials. Apart from being black, he was younger. Hilary might have had proven experience, but his very lack of experience was also an asset. He was a fresh face, untainted by past scandals and relatively uncorrupted by the party machine. He successfully marketed himself as the candidate of change. What would he do differently to George Bush? Answer. Everything. More importantly, everything you wanted. "It's not about me" he said "it's about you". I'm your candidate and I will do whatever I can to deliver the America you want.
That's clever marketing. And young people buy that sort of rhetoric. The young and the internet savvy formed his base. He was one of them and they went out and told their friends. That gave him momentum and he started to nip at Clinton's heels. When she tripped up and went negative, he gained further momentum and became a phenomenon. When Edwards pulled out Obama seems to have picked up most of Edward's supporters. Now, the thing about band waggons is that most people jump on them, just because they are band waggons. Looking like a winner is all it takes to be a winner. No one wants to be left standing alongside the loser.
But is Obama capable of effecting real change? How competent is he? What does he really stand for? How will he fare when his honeymoon period ends, as it surely will? Will he be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine, or will he crumple?
From what little we have to go on, these are a few of the things of importance to me I have distilled:
In 2000 all most Americans wanted was a President who would remain faithful to his wife. The number one reason people gave for electing George W Bush in 2000 was "moral values". It was still the number one reason in 2004, though the percentage was not as high.
So, in 2008 what do people hate about George Bush? The answer is, just about everything. Republicans and Democrats are both looking for a candidate who is as different from Bush as they can be. So we have maverick Republican and outsider, John McCain on one side. And a major Democratic contest for the title of "Least Bush" on the other.
But the voters' assessments have little to do with policy. Even if people were willing and able to analyze the policies of each candidate, there is very little to distinguish one candidate's policies from another. Instinctively people know the larger question is, who is best able to implement policy, and effect results? As with cars unfortunately, this assessment is mostly based on "look and feel", rather than substance. The whole contest comes down to one of presentation and marketing.
For a long time Hilary Clinton was the Democratic front runner. Being a woman made her very different from George Bush. More importantly, people had seen her perform under all sorts of pressure. She was a great debater and could take on any of the men, and she had survived 17 years of tough public exposure. But when husband Bill took on an attack dog role, it brought her leadership into question, apart from waking the "moral values" ghost.
Obama did not perform as well in those early debates, but he did have a lot of non-Bush credentials. Apart from being black, he was younger. Hilary might have had proven experience, but his very lack of experience was also an asset. He was a fresh face, untainted by past scandals and relatively uncorrupted by the party machine. He successfully marketed himself as the candidate of change. What would he do differently to George Bush? Answer. Everything. More importantly, everything you wanted. "It's not about me" he said "it's about you". I'm your candidate and I will do whatever I can to deliver the America you want.
That's clever marketing. And young people buy that sort of rhetoric. The young and the internet savvy formed his base. He was one of them and they went out and told their friends. That gave him momentum and he started to nip at Clinton's heels. When she tripped up and went negative, he gained further momentum and became a phenomenon. When Edwards pulled out Obama seems to have picked up most of Edward's supporters. Now, the thing about band waggons is that most people jump on them, just because they are band waggons. Looking like a winner is all it takes to be a winner. No one wants to be left standing alongside the loser.
But is Obama capable of effecting real change? How competent is he? What does he really stand for? How will he fare when his honeymoon period ends, as it surely will? Will he be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine, or will he crumple?
From what little we have to go on, these are a few of the things of importance to me I have distilled:
- The thing I seek most in a candidate is someone who is willing to take the side of law and justice in the Israel-Palestine conflict. America's unconditional support for Israel is morally indefensible. It is the main cause of Arab and Muslim hatred and suspicion, and costs US taxpayers billions in aid and wasteful and ineffective anti-terrorist campaigns. How surprising that a black candidate, a self-proclaimed champion of those without a voice, barely acknowledges the existence of a Palestinian grievance in his Foreign Policy statements. His website devotes several paragraphs to continued over the top support for Israel, notwithstanding that country's appalling human rights record. He voices support for a Palestinian state, like everyone else, but shows no intention of giving Israel the push it needs to get there. He talks of beginning "to lay the stones that will build the road...." How timid and non-committal is that?
- This issue raises further questions of credibility. Some time back Mr Obama let slip his view that no one has suffered more than the Palestinians. That little indiscretion unleashed a full scale Zionist attack, with the usual anti-Semitic smears. Obama has been working hard to restore his pro-Israel credibility ever since. The first question is, does he have a hidden pro-Palestinian agenda? Can he be taken at face value? Or second, has he surrendered what he believes in, just to win votes and campaign contributions. If he thinks he can change policies once he gets into office he is naive. If he is willing to compromise his principles for the sake of electoral success, he is not the force for change he claims to be.
- The other big issue for me is the environment. Like most Americans, Mr Obama seems completely unaware of the world's number one environmental problem, namely America's unsustainable diet. He supports efforts to address climate change, but he also seems to think bio-fuels are some kind of a solution. His careful wording does emphasize "Next Generation Biofuels". This at least suggests he is well aware of the growing scientific evidence against the proclaimed benefits, not to mention the horrifying consequences for world poverty. But at this stage he continues to lead on America's corn growers.
- Mr Obama's voting record places him squarely on the left wing of his party. How good is his grasp of economics? And what major economic changes may he attempt if he gets into office? How acceptable will his policies be to middle America?
- Mr Obama's foreign policy statments place heavy emphasis on diplomacy? This is well and good. But what if diplomacy fails? This is an option his statements simply do not contemplate.
On the things which matter to me, Clinton and McCain are no better. Indeed, when it comes to Palestine, they are both as bad or worse than Bush.
But for me there is a bigger issue, and it is this. Anyone who claims he will do whatever people want is no leader. It is about him, and it's all about him! A true leader is someone who knows what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and persuades the public to follow. What Americans need today is someone of courage to tell them that they are the ones who need to change.
Americans cannot go on gobbling up the world's resources, and tell the rest of the world that they need to do more to limit their populations and their carbon footprint. They cannot return to protectionist policies which will perpetuate world poverty and limit everyone's economic growth. And they cannot lecture the world on freedom and democracy, when they support so many regimes that are less than shining examples.
So far the only candidate I see saying exactly what he thinks is John McCain. He was brutally frank about the loss of jobs in the car industry, to his detriment. Unfortunately he failed to point out the upside of free trade, possibly due to his self-confessed weakness when it comes to economics. His support for addressing climate change is commendable, in the face of conservative opposition. But he voices the same pre-conditions which make American action dependent on other countries. Either way he sees little need for America to change.
Mrs Clinton probably has a better grasp of what needs to change and how to make it happen. But she won't speak her mind for fear of alienating more voters. Unfortunately, clever marketing can no longer do it for her.
Mr Obama is now the Democratic front runner. He got there by promising everything to everyone. He now carries the hopes of millions of Americans. But what evidence is there, at this stage, to suggest that those hopes might be fulfilled?
If Americans ultimately chose the Obama model, what faults might they find when they drive it home?
But for me there is a bigger issue, and it is this. Anyone who claims he will do whatever people want is no leader. It is about him, and it's all about him! A true leader is someone who knows what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and persuades the public to follow. What Americans need today is someone of courage to tell them that they are the ones who need to change.
Americans cannot go on gobbling up the world's resources, and tell the rest of the world that they need to do more to limit their populations and their carbon footprint. They cannot return to protectionist policies which will perpetuate world poverty and limit everyone's economic growth. And they cannot lecture the world on freedom and democracy, when they support so many regimes that are less than shining examples.
So far the only candidate I see saying exactly what he thinks is John McCain. He was brutally frank about the loss of jobs in the car industry, to his detriment. Unfortunately he failed to point out the upside of free trade, possibly due to his self-confessed weakness when it comes to economics. His support for addressing climate change is commendable, in the face of conservative opposition. But he voices the same pre-conditions which make American action dependent on other countries. Either way he sees little need for America to change.
Mrs Clinton probably has a better grasp of what needs to change and how to make it happen. But she won't speak her mind for fear of alienating more voters. Unfortunately, clever marketing can no longer do it for her.
Mr Obama is now the Democratic front runner. He got there by promising everything to everyone. He now carries the hopes of millions of Americans. But what evidence is there, at this stage, to suggest that those hopes might be fulfilled?
If Americans ultimately chose the Obama model, what faults might they find when they drive it home?
